SACRAMENTO -- Lance Armstrong had a right to lie about his cycling career in his autobiographies, even if millions of readers might have felt deceived by it later, attorneys for Armstrong and his publishers told a federal judge Thursday.

But did Armstrong dupe readers into buying those books based on a false advertising campaign?

U.S. District Judge Morrison England said he will make a decision in the matter soon after hearing arguments Thursday in a lawsuit against Armstrong and his book publishers. The class-action suit was filed in January by readers of Armstrong's books, including his autobiographies It's Not About the Bike and Every Second Counts. They seek refunds and damages in excess of $5 million.

"He cheated on bike races to sell books, and he published the books in order to cover up the cheating," plaintiffs attorney Kevin Roddy told England. "We think they're interwined."

Attorneys for Armstrong and the publishers have asked England to throw out the case on the grounds that Armstrong's lies are protected by his First Amendment right to free speech.

"The First Amendment bars any action here," said Bradley Ellis, attorney for Random House, publisher of Every Second Counts.

After several years of denials, Armstrong confessed on television in January that he had used illegal drugs and blood transfusions to boost his cycling career. A week later, the readers filed the suit, claiming they had been defrauded.

The books contain several lengthy passages in which Armstrong falsely denies doping, including his first book It's Not About the Bike, which was published in 2000 and went on to sell more than 1.2 million copies in the U.S, according to Nielsen BookScan.

A big question in this case is whether Armstrong also deceived the readers into buying the books through false advertising or commercial speech, which is not protected by the First Amendment.

"It's not just about the book," Roddy said.

By marketing himself as a drug-free All-American hero, Roddy argued that Armstrong induced consumers into buying books they would not have purchased if they had known the truth about his cheating and doping. If they had known Armstrong's story was a "fairy tale," Roddy said, "nobody would have paid more than a penny" for the books.

As an example, Roddy cited an interview Armstrong gave to talk-show host Charlie Rose during his book promotion campaign. He said it shows Armstrong denied doping to help sell books.

The defense attorneys disagree. They said Roddy's argument is not valid because the readers fail to identify a specific false statement that induced them to buy the books. They also said Armstrong's lies were not commercial speech. Instead they describe Armstrong's doping lies as speech that is protected by the First Amendment because it was made in a public forum "in connection with an issue of public interest."

"How does Charlie Rose even end up in his courtroom (as a topic of discussion)?" asked Zia Modabber, Armstrong's attorney. Modabber said no plaintiff even alleges they saw that interview with Rose.

England posed a hypothetical question to Roddy: What if Armstrong didn't promote the book at all and just told his lies inside the pages of his books? Referring to the lies in the book, England asked, "That is protected speech – am I right or wrong?"

Roddy replied, "Your hypothetical is interesting, but that's not how books are sold nowadays."

The suit was filed in California under California consumer protection laws and seeks to represent other readers of the books in California. The other defendants are Penguin Group and several other publishing companies, plus Armstrong's agent Bill Stapleton and his cycling team's financier, Thomas Weisel.